5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
Progressives Rip Newsom Over Reported Meddling in Suit Against Paramount-Warner Merger
"You're not going to believe this but Gavin Newsom is taking the side of capital over workers," said one critic.
Jul 31, 2026
The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has expressed reservations about his state's antitrust lawsuit that aims to block the $110 billion megamerger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros.
According to the Journal's sources, Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency in 2028, has expressed concern about the impact that blocking the merger would have on jobs in Hollywood, and his office has reportedly "encouraged" California Attorney General Rob Bonta to reach a settlement with Paramount.
"It is unclear what impact, if any, Newsom’s urging will have on the California attorney general’s suit," the Journal reported. "Newsom doesn’t have a role in the litigation and doesn’t have authority over the state attorney general’s actions."
Bonta, along with several other Democratic state attorneys general who are co-plaintiffs in the antitrust suit, scored a major victory last week when a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order to pause the merger from going forward. In response, the companies have agreed not to close the deal until five days after a trial is held or next June 1, whichever is sooner.
The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.
Newsom earlier this year told Semafor media reporter Maxwell Tani that he's known David Ellison for years, while emphasizing that California's probe of the proposed merger "isn't a personal attack" on the Paramount CEO.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, expressed mock surprise at Newsom reportedly going to bat for the merger.
"You're not going to believe this but Gavin Newsom is taking the side of capital over workers," Dayen wrote. "In this case it's tricky because he's backing the very MAGA allies his cosplaying X account claims he's fighting."
Tech journalist Karl Bode described Newsom's reported efforts to push the merger through as a "nice sneak peak of the sort of media policies you can expect under his presidency."
Elections analyst Nick Field questioned Newsom's reported concern about Hollywood jobs being lost if the merger gets blocked, as corporate consolidation usually coincides with mass layoffs.
"Paramount will undoubtedly cut tons of jobs if they buy Warner Bros., as the Ellisons did when they bought Paramount in the first place," wrote Field. "To say nothing of allowing the Ellisons to own CNN and consolidate more power. Just disgusting supplication from Newsom."
Antitrust advocate Matt Stoller, however, expressed skepticism at the Journal's reporting on Newsom, if for no other reason than the California governor was unlikely to risk hurting his image among Democratic primary voters by pushing through an unpopular corporate merger.
"It would be an odd for Gavin Newsom to encourage the control of Hollywood by close allies of Donald Trump considering his 2028 ambitions," wrote Stoller. "He's not stupid."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'A Slap in the Face to Moms and Dads': GOP Blocks Attempt to Stop Trump From Raising Childcare Costs
"If Trump had simply done nothing... some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Jul 31, 2026
In what Democratic Sen. Patty Murray described as a “slap in the face to moms and dads,” Republicans have blocked her proposed resolution to restore a rule that could have saved low-income parents thousands of dollars per year on childcare before the Trump administration axed it.
Under a rule that went into effect earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a Biden-era rule that capped families’ copayments at 7% of their household income for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps about 994,000 low-income families pay for childcare so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training.
The program is administered at the state level, and under the abandoned rule that was enacted in 2024, all states were required to begin phasing in the 7% cap, which is considered a federal affordability benchmark.
Under the Trump policy change, states will not be required to cap parents' copayments as long as they continue to use a sliding scale based on income level and don't present a "barrier” to receiving assistance, though it's not specified what that means.
As of March 2026, 19 states had not lowered their maximum copayment to 7%.
An April analysis by the Center for American Progress found that, by eliminating the federal cap, families in 10 states that have not enacted it would lose between $450 and more than $15,000 in potential annual savings, depending on how high their state sets the threshold.
In Ohio, which caps copayments at 27% of household income, families could lose up to $15,482 in annual savings under the maximum copayment. In Vermont, which caps copayments at 14.9% of household income, families could lose up to $11,712.
(Graphic from the Center for American Progress)
Murray (D-Wash), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), introduced a resolution last month under the Congressional Review Act, which would have nullified the administration's elimination of the 7% cap.
It also would have restored other Biden-era requirements that were reversed under the same rule, including requirements that states pay childcare providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, pay them in advance, and use grants and contracts to fund childcare for infants, children with disabilities, and those in underserved communities.
In a speech on the Senate floor before the resolution came to a procedural vote on Thursday, she told her colleagues bluntly, “You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them.”
She challenged the senators who planned to vote against the resolution to “go home and tell the parents in your state you voted to raise their childcare bill,” adding that “you cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one.”
In a party-line vote on Friday, the bill was blocked from advancing by a margin of 52-47, with every Republican voting against it except for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is absent after being hospitalized in June.
After the vote failed, Murray described it as an example of Republicans taking money away from American families struggling to afford the basics of life while pushing for lavish spending on war and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
“How about instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare?” Murray said. “If Trump had simply done nothing, and left the 7% cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family.”
According to a Century Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, childcare costs increased by 5% from August 2024 to August 2025 and now average more than $13,000 per child per year across age groups.
Trump has been surprisingly open about the fact that, under his control, and in direct contrast with his campaign promises, the federal government is prioritizing spending on his war in Iran instead of providing government subsidies for Americans’ basic needs, including daycare.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare," he said during a speech in April. "You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Trump says we can’t afford childcare. But he is wrong,” said Murray, who has co-introduced legislation to expand federal childcare subsidies and cover nearly all costs for low-income families. “The truth is we can’t afford to ignore childcare.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Raskin Launches Probe of Scheme to Sell Insider Access to Trump Truth Social Posts
"This White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading," said the Maryland Democrat.
Jul 31, 2026
"Are you helping the president sell people advance access to market-moving information?"
That's the opening line of a Thursday letter that US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent to Kevin McGurn, interim CEO of President Donald Trump's Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) Corp.
TMTG runs Trump's Truth Social platform and earlier this month announced plans to launch "Truth API" by August 1. API, or application programming interface, lets software applications talk to each other. Critics have warned that the new endeavor will give Wall Street firms faster access to posts by the president and other top accounts.
"Trump Media's target market for buyers of this service is 'high-frequency and algorithmic trading firms,' which would each pay a
handsome $100,000 monthly subscription fee," Raskin wrote. "Nearly half of each fee would go directly into the pocket of Donald Trump, who owns roughly 41% of the company's shares through a trust that he continues to control."
"Put another way, Trump Media will soon be selling early access to President Trump's so-called 'Truth' missives to the most sophisticated investment firms in the world," he stressed. "This insider-information scheme will enable Wall Street to profit from the president's frequent market-moving posts on major businesses and cash in on swings in stock prices caused by the president's buying and selling (or pumping and dumping, if you prefer) of publicly traded stocks to unwitting retail investors."
As Investopedia pointed out Thursday: "In recent months Trump has posted about new developments in the Iran War, which is particularly important for buyers and sellers of futures contracts who are trying to ascertain where oil prices are headed. Over the past year, he has also posted about tariff policy, government investments in publicly traded companies, and other corporate news developments."
Additionally, as Raskin highlighted, "Trump has promoted over 20 companies on his Truth Social account shortly after purchasing the companies’ stocks, including government contractors where the Trump administration exerted substantial ability to move markets in those companies' favor. Donald Trump Jr.'s investment firm, 1789 Capital, has posted a staggering 200% investment return since his father's return to the White House, with the president recently admitting that his oldest sons are coventurers in his corruption."
Once the new service is up and running, "whenever President Trump uses Truth Social to announce that a ceasefire is imminent, or prematurely leaks US jobs data, his customers will now be able to front-run the market using their privileged access to his social media posts, leaving retail investors, pension plans, and retirement accounts irreparably disadvantaged," he warned. "This is precisely the type of harm that federal securities laws are designed to prevent."
Concerns about TMTG's plans led Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.) to demand that US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins launch an investigation. The senators wrote to the Trump-nominated SEC leader on Tuesday that the current administration "is the most corrupt in the nation's history," and the company's "new service threatens to undermine the integrity of capital markets."
In the meantime, Raskin—a constitutional scholar who managed Trump's historic second impeachment—is conducting his own probe of what he called a "reverse Robin Hood scheme," arguing that "this White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading." The congressman is demanding a lengthy list of records from the CEO of Trump's company by August 13.
"The president of the United States should be using the office to 'take care' that laws are enforced and to advance the public interest," he said, nodding to the US Constitution. "Instead, President Trump is, once again, using it to enrich in spectacular fashion himself, his family, and corporate cronies while also destroying the integrity of financial markets in the process."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Every Single Thing He Says Here Is a Lie': Trump Adviser Claims Data Centers Are 'Good for Towns'
"The disdain this administration has for the very people living in rural America who helped bring it to power is staggering," wrote one critic.
Jul 31, 2026
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Friday drew sharp criticism after he claimed that energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers are "good for towns" across the US.
During an appearance on Fox Business, Hassett made the case that Americans should welcome data centers into their communities because they would supposedly deliver real economic benefits.
"Data centers are very good for towns, because they create so many jobs and bring people in with high incomes that can buy houses and stuff like that," said Hassett. "So if you take a sleepy town that hasn't seen much in the last 20, 30 years and put a data center there, there are gonna be a whole bunch of happy residents in that town."
Hassett: "Data centers are very good for towns, because they create so many jobs and bring people in with high incomes that can buy houses and stuff like that. So if you take a sleepy town that hasn't seen much in the last 30 years and put a data center there, there are gonna be… pic.twitter.com/K1gymIK2Bw
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 31, 2026
A March Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans were opposed to building AI data centers in their local areas, with 48% registering strong opposition.
In the poll, many Americans cited concerns about data centers' uses of local water and electricity resources as their primary reason for opposition, as well as general concerns about their impact on the environment and the local quality of life.
Additionally, data centers have not proven to be a significant source of job creation in communities where they are built because their systems are so automated that they require very little staff to maintain.
Trump administration critics were quick to slam Hassett for peddling such outright falsehoods about data centers.
"Every single thing he says here is a lie," remarked Ben Collins, CEO of the satirical news website The Onion. "A Potemkin Village Imaginarium."
Jeffrey Vagle, professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, similarly saw little connection between Hassett's description of data centers and reality.
"Has Hassett ever been inside a data center?" Vagle asked. "He should do so then put together an employee per square foot analysis to compare with other businesses. Data centers are largely automated, operating with very few actual employees, none of them executives."
Vagle's analysis was echoed by journalist Philip Bump, who wondered "what high-paying long-term jobs do they pretend exist" when AI data centers move in.
"A data center isn't a place where execs come and do Big Deals," Bump explained. "Go to the server room at your workplace; are there lots of rich people in there spending money?"
Democratic pollster Stephen Clermont sarcastically encouraged Hassett to speak more about the purported virtues of data centers.
"The White House needs to keep with this messaging and keep using Hassett as a surrogate," Clermont wrote. "The Forgotten Man will be forgotten no more in the data center utopia."
Liberal Fox News personality Jessica Tarlov similarly argued that Hassett's happy talk about data centers could be good for Democrats.
"Take the opening Democrats!" she wrote. "Americans hate data centers. The utility bills. The noise. The pollution."
Glenn Elliott, former Democratic US Senate candidate in West Virginia, argued Hassett's pitch for data centers showed what the Trump administration really thinks of its core voting base.
"The disdain this administration has for the very people living in rural America who helped bring it to power is staggering," Elliott wrote.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'An Illegal Gambling Operation': Online Prediction Market Kalshi Sued by New York
"No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Jul 31, 2026
The state of New York on Friday announced it was suing online prediction market Kalshi for operating as "an illegal gambling operation."
In a complaint filed with the New York State Supreme Court, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleged that Kalshi was running an unlicensed gambling business "in flagrant disregard" of the Empire State's "constitution, penal laws, and other statutes."
The complaint notes that, among other things, Kalshi allows users as young as 18 years old to place bets on its platform, while New York state law limits legalized gambling to persons aged 21 or older.
"New York’s gambling laws protect children from underage betting and help combat gambling addiction," said James in her announcement of the lawsuit. "No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple. By ignoring our laws, Kalshi is running an illegal operation and harming New Yorkers in the process. We are taking them to court to uphold our laws and protect New Yorkers."
James' lawsuit asks the court to permanently bar Kalshi from operating inside the state unless it obtains a license from the New York State Gaming Commission; ordering it to "produce an accounting of all bets placed, monies lost by customers in connection with its gambling business"; and forcing it to pay assorted "restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties" for its assorted violations of the law.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, in a statement supporting the lawsuit against Kalshi, accused the company of ignoring state gambling laws, "which exist to protect consumers, prevent problematic gambling, deliver funding for critical public services, and ensure that every company plays by the same rules."
Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B), who earlier this year authored legislation to ban prediction markets in her state, said that teenagers getting hooked on gambling apps is becoming a major problem.
“We’re seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds,” said Greenman, “and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger.”
President Donald Trump's administration, however, has regularly worked to quash state governments' efforts to regulate online prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Specifically, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with prediction market and sports betting industry insiders who have been pursuing legal action against any states attempting to clamp down on the online gambling platforms.
Earlier this year, CFTC Chair Michael Selig warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would “circumvent the clear directive of Congress.”
“Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others,” said Selig. “If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Exxon, Chevron Post $26.5 Billion in Combined Profits as High Gas Prices Pummel Americans
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran war imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
Jul 31, 2026
ExxonMobil and Chevron repeated $26.5 billion in combined profits in the second quarter of 2026 as US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran drove up gas prices around the world, punishing consumers at the pump while boosting oil companies' bottom lines.
Chevron on Friday announced $12 billion in profits for the second quarter—its highest quarterly profit in six years—while Exxon posted $14.5 billion. Exxon touted its "industry-leading shareholder distributions," which "totaled $9.4 billion, including $4.3 billion of dividends and $5.1 billion of share repurchases."
Reuters noted that the two companies' results "mirrored those of European oil majors TotalEnergies and Shell, which also posted banner second-quarter profits buoyed by higher oil prices."
The oil giants' earnings came weeks after a Harris survey found that 95% of Americans believe the US is facing an affordability crisis, with gas and groceries at the top of the list of "unaffordable goods and services." The current national average price for a gallon of gas is $4.1.
"The pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran war imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big," a group of Democratic senators wrote in a recent letter. "President Trump has made the calculus explicit in his own words. When it comes to families facing increasing prices in the context of the Iran war, he said: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.'"
Sierra Club said Thursday that Big Oil's wartime profits are "paid by you," and called for a "windfall profits tax to recover a portion of the excess profits oil companies rake in during a global crisis and return that money to the people who paid higher prices."
"At the same time as oil and gas companies are preparing for a multibillion-dollar payday, they are working with the Trump administration to block investment in clean energy sources that would make American families more energy independent," the group added. "It's time to make polluters pay."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn't Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements
Under a new policy the administration is defending in court, low-income people with cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, and other life-threatening illnesses must prove they're too sick to work or risk losing their health insurance.
Jul 30, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Hospitals See Massive Surge in Uninsured Patients After GOP's Healthcare Cuts
"We’re really crushing people who are desperately trying to pay their bills," said a chief executive at a nonprofit hospital group.
Jul 30, 2026
Months after congressional Republicans refused to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who receive their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, hospitals across the US are seeing a surge in uninsured patients seeking emergency medical care.
According to a Thursday report in The New York Times, executives at large hospital systems have been raising alarms over "the unexpectedly sharp rise in uninsured patients and the costs associated with treating them."
With many uninsured patients unable to pay their hospital bills, the Times noted, hospitals are seeing "lost revenues amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars across the country's vast health systems."
The Times linked this surge in uninsured patients directly to the Republican-controlled Congress allowing more generous subsidies for plans purchased through the ACA to lapse at the end of 2025. Enrollment in the program has fallen by about 3 million people since last year.
"What that tells me is that there are patients who are completely unable to pay," Laura Kaiser, chief executive of Catholic nonprofit hospital group SSM Health, told the Times. "We’re really crushing people who are desperately trying to pay their bills."
Executives at Universal Health Services (UHS), a for-profit hospital operator, said during an earnings call on Tuesday that the losses they expect to incur from treating uninsured patients have been significantly higher than their initial projects.
As reported by Healthcare Dive on Wednesday, UHS had initially projected that some patients who dropped their coverage provided by the ACA would find another way to get health insurance.
However, UHS CFO Steve Filton told investors that "it felt like virtually everyone who lost their exchange coverage became an uninsured patient."
UHS is hardly alone in suffering losses due to lapsed ACA subsidies, as Axios reported on Tuesday that HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the US, is projecting a $400 million hit to revenue that is tied partially to "an influx of uninsured patients."
HCA CEO Sam Hazen said the increase in uninsured patients was a direct consequence of the GOP's refusal to extend the ACA subsidies.
"The effects, as expected, were that many people became uninsured and still needed emergency care from hospitals," Hazen said. "As we look at the first half of the year, our expectations proved accurate, although the impact was greater than our estimates."
An increase in uninsured patients is bad both for hospitals' finances and patients themselves.
As KFF explained in a June report, people without insurance are more likely to avoid seeking medical treatment until their situation becomes too dire to ignore.
"People without health coverage are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems," KFF wrote, "and to experience declines in their overall health as a consequence of having undiagnosed conditions and a lower likelihood of receiving preventive and chronic disease management care. When they are hospitalized, uninsured people receive fewer diagnostic and therapeutic services and also have higher mortality rates than those with insurance."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Study Shows How Trump's ICE Raids Cost Americans Jobs
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said one economist, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Jul 29, 2026
President Donald Trump has spent years insisting that immigrant communities are "taking our jobs" and that expelling migrants via the mass deportation campaign he's imposed on cities and towns across the country would swiftly result in an employment boom—but a new study reveals how aggressive raids by federal agents are resulting in a decline in employment for US-born citizens as well as their immigrant neighbors and coworkers.
A study authored by Elizabeth Cox and Chloe East and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that while Trump's sweeping raids and arrests of hundreds of thousands of people have pushed those who have been deported out of their jobs, and "immigrants who remain in the US are working less due to chilling effects," those changes have done nothing to stimulate job growth among US citizens.
"We show no evidence of positive effects of the labor market outcomes of US-born workers," wrote the authors. "Instead, ICE activity lowers the employment rate of US-born male workers, likely driven by a combination of complementarities in production and reductions in economic activity both reducing labor demand for US-born workers."
In other words, said the Immigration Research Initiative (IRI) on Monday, "arresting and deporting immigrants results in a cascade of job loss," affecting longtime employees who have work authorization but may stay home or leave the US out of fear of being deported, and US-born workers who struggle to keep businesses afloat after people who support their essential operations are detained and deported.
The study focused on men's employment because about 90% of the people arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other related agencies have been male.
For every 1,000 immigrant men arrested by ICE, the researchers found a 2.5% decline in employment for immigrant men without a college degree—those most at risk of being detained.
In areas where ICE activity has been particularly aggressive, a 0.54% decline in employment among US-born men in the area was found for every 1,000 ICE arrests.
"On US-born males’ employment rate, we find a negative and significant effect," reads the study. "There is no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers."
In response to the study, IRI created a model showing how employment would be affected in each state, should 1% of the most at-risk immigrant men be detained by ICE.
The group projected that such a dramatic statewide surge in enforcement in California, for example, would result in the direct expulsion of 15,600 immigrant men from their jobs. Another 615,000 immigrants would lose employment due to the chilling effect of the surge, and an estimated 466,000 US-born Californian men would also ultimately lose their jobs.
"Jobs where undocumented immigrants play a particularly big role are often complementary to jobs with higher numbers of US-born workers," IRI explained. "For instance, in the construction industry, a high concentration of roofers and construction laborers are immigrants, and are often undocumented, while a high concentration of electricians and plumbers are US-born. Then when construction companies cannot find laborers, they build less, and hire fewer electricians."
Texas, another state with a large immigrant workforce, would see an estimated 9,700 immigrant men swept up in a statewide surge that targeted 1% of the most at-risk people. An additional 237,800 immigrant men would also lose work, as well as 266,100 US-born men.
More than 128,000 American men would also be projected to lose employment as the result of immigration enforcement in Florida, as well as 18,600 in North Carolina; 16,800 in Pennsylvania; and 11,700 in Arizona.
IRI examined three states in Northern New England—Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont—as a whole, determining that mass arrests would take a total of 300 immigrants out of the workforce in the states, and would force job cuts for about 700 US citizens.
Mass deportation operations like Trump's shrink both the workforce and the overall economy of an area, said IRI, because the people who are directly impacted—and those who fear ICE enforcement even if the government has no legal reason to deport them—"no longer shop at businesses, eat at restaurants, and pay taxes."
"The decline in consumer spending likely explains the study’s finding that employment reductions are concentrated in 'non-tradeable' sectors, those driven by local spending (e.g. restaurants) rather than sectors oriented toward exports (e.g. manufacturing)," said IRI.
James Myall, senior economic policy analyst at Maine Center for Economic Policy, said in a statement Tuesday that the research "just proves how self-defeating the Trump administration’s immigration policies really are."
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said Myall, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Americans Will Give Trump an F': Analysis Shows Surging Costs of School Supplies
"If the president continues to treat our economy like a schoolyard game, our students and their families will pay the price."
Jul 27, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump continues dismissing Americans' concerns about affordability heading into the 2026 midterm elections, a study released on Monday reveals that US parents are about to pay a hefty premium to ensure their children are prepared for school this fall.
A joint analysis from Groundwork Collaborative and The Century Foundation finds that a typical basket of school supplies costs nearly 8% more than it did last year, with typical school lunch items costing 11% more.
Lunch boxes have posted the largest yearly price increase, as the analysis estimates they will cost nearly 27% more this year than in 2025. Other items whose prices have soared include one-subject notebooks (23% yearly increase), index cards (22%), and notebook paper (20%).
Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has caused fuel prices including diesel to surge higher, has played a large role in increasing prices, as have his tariffs on foreign imports, the report notes.
The increase in diesel has been particularly troublesome for the price of food, the analysis points out, as the fuel is used both by farmers to power their agricultural equipment and by delivery trucks that ship food to grocery stores.
When it comes to the tariffs, the report points to Newell Brands—the company that makes Sharpies, Paper Mate, Elmer's glue, and other school supply staples—which has been hit with a $174 million tax bill thanks to Trump's policies and has consistently raised prices over the last year.
The report also points to changes made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) made in Republicans' 2025 budget law that will make it harder for low-income kids to qualify for food assistance this school year.
Lindsay Owens, president of Groundwork Collaborative, said Trump's policies are forcing parents "to worry about whether they can afford to buy what their students need to be successful in the classroom."
"If the president continues to treat our economy like a schoolyard game, our students and their families will pay the price," said Owens. "When report cards come this year, Americans will give Trump an F.”
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at The Century Foundation, noted that school supplies aren't luxuries for families, but rather "the baseline for a kid to show up ready to learn."
"When notebooks and paper are up over 20%," Jones emphasized, "we’re not just squeezing family budgets, we’re setting students up to fall behind. We know where this leads: lower test scores, more kids repeating grades, and worse outcomes well into adulthood."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Huge Win for Consumers': Paramount Delays Warner Bros. Deal Over Court Fight
California's attorney general called the development "great news for audiences, movie theaters, and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy."
Jul 24, 2026
Paramount Skydance on Friday officially delayed its attempted acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery after a federal judge in the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the $111 billion deal at the request of a dozen Democratic attorneys general.
US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted the temporary restraining order on Monday after finding that the plaintiffs—led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta—provided "compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market." She extended the order on Thursday.
The companies have now agreed not to close the deal—also the target of a Writers Guild of America lawsuit—until five days after a trial is held or June 1, 2027, whichever is sooner. While the attorneys general and their supporters framed the development as a victory for their side, a Paramount spokesperson similarly said that "today's agreement is a significant win because the result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence."
"This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached," the spokesperson continued. "Plaintiffs' market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today's marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny. We look forward to proving our case at trial."
Meanwhile, Bonta said in a statement that "our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse."
"Today's agreement is great news for audiences, movie theaters, and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy," he emphasized. "We are eager to continue to make our case in court and celebrate another tremendous win in our effort to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day."
Joining Bonta in battle are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. They, too, celebrated on Friday.
"Stopping this merger while our case proceeds is a critical victory in our efforts to uphold the law and protect the film and television industries," New York's Letitia James stressed on social media. In a video, New Jersey's Jennifer Davenport also called the companies' decision "a huge win for consumers" and pledged to "continue to fight to block this merger for good."
Responding to one of Davenport's social media posts, actor and activist Mark Ruffalo declared: "Today's news is a repudiation of Paramount's strategy of currying favor with the Trump administration to grease the wheels on this illegal merger—from sham settlement payments to manipulating its own news coverage. Stay strong and #BlockTheMerger."
Some opposition to the deal is rooted in the fact that it would give Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump—control of CNN, as he already faces mounting criticism for his and Bari Weiss' management of CBS News.
"The Ellisons believed their relationship with President Trump would help them push through a disastrous deal that threatened democracy, creative freedom, and independent journalism. We in the #BlocktheMerger campaign helped prove them wrong," said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, in a statement.
"Paramount's decision keeps two major studios competing instead of handing one company even more power over what Americans watch, what they pay, and where entertainment workers can earn a living," he continued. "The merger would have eliminated one of Hollywood's largest buyers of scripts and productions while placing Paramount+, HBO Max, CBS News, CNN, and dozens of local stations under the management of one company."
"This victory in putting the merger on hold belongs to the people who refused to treat the merger as inevitable," Eisen added. "Artists, journalists, filmmakers, and consumer advocates spoke out despite the risk of retaliation, more than 5,500 people signed our open letter, and Attorneys General Rob Bonta and Letitia James, along with 10 other attorneys general, acted. This collective resistance is turning the tide."
Craig Aaron, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, said that "Paramount tried to tell us this deal was a slam-dunk, but it just shot an airball. Late in the game, Paramount's lawyers grasped what we've said all along: The states have a very solid case that this deal violates US antitrust law. For the broad and growing coalition against this corrupt and dangerous deal, this delay marks a significant victory."
"Instead of fighting against an injunction and possibly losing now, Paramount's lawyers have resigned themselves to waiting for a full antitrust trial in federal court," Aaron added. "Paramount can pretend all it wants that it looks forward to that test, but that’s just more bluster from company mouthpieces trying to spin a major setback. Now this deal will face its day in court, and we are confident the evidence will show this mega-merger should be blocked."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy